To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
Well, alrighty. I was on the fence at the time he was chosen(way, way before Ford) due to his "baggage"(literal quote). Not knowing that the Dems would have this kind of attack going. Also, I was ready to stick a fork in him when I saw his character on display at the start of his testimony. But then I realized pretty quickly that I was the one being unfair, and biased. That I sat and listened to the accuser, and I commiserated with her, and I thought that she likely was the victim of some kind of teen attack or assault. Notwithstanding, that her character was about as disgusting as I've seen in a 15YO girl. i.e. - way underage drinking, wanting to screw 56 MEN before college, slutty pictures, etc. So - it was hypocritical that I not offer the same hearing, and deliberation to Kavanaugh. I got off to the same kind of start that you are displaying now, after they've both been heard.
Which leads me to assess - that you were never really on the fence. You were willing to hear what he said, but not the content of his testimony, just as you(and I) fully bought into the testimony of Ford. You've been blinded as I was by the weakness and effete behaviors. Would I have been the same, given those circumstance? Would I have been domineering and forceful? Hard to say, I've never been in that kind of position.
If you were, as you say objective at the start, it's a sad thing to say that his demeanor during the testimony has swayed you away from him. Under the typical conditions of a lawyer, or jurist, or judge, where jurisprudence is to be weighed in the absence of passion, I guess I see your point. But - we are NOT talking about his jurisprudence here! We are talking about a personal attack of the most venal kind, filled with personal rancor, passion, rhetoric, argument, invective, and yes - political partisanship designed to use the nastiest form of male denigration short of murder.
In short, I don't like whiny men either. But - if he is guilty of what she said, then the Dems have taken the wrong turn at every step of the way to induce impartial and judicious or objective results. Ford sending her letter to the leading political member of the committee, refusing to be acknowledged, waiting until the end of advise and consent, leaking, assigning highly partisan lawyers to the victim, publishing rumor and hearsay, failure to research, shoddy testimony, and a dozen other ways the left has mucked this up. If you can't see that, and you still have a problem with his emotions on the stand - no one can help you.